Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

Jennison, Toby; Jawed, Abdulla; El‐Bakoury, Ahmed; Hosny, Hazem A.H.; Yarlagadda, Rathan

doi:10.1007/s00590-019-02393-8

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That study compared the interobserver and intraobserver reliability of three proposed classifications for IFFs: Pires [11], Soenen [16], and Platzer [13]. The Pires classification demonstrated interobserver reliability of κ = 0.499 and intraobserver reliability κ = 0.636, leaving a high proportion of fractures classified differently by different observers and by the same observer when performed at different times [5]. The authors did not account for or note variability in the agreement of interpretation between the consultant surgeons and the specialty registrar, and they noted that the Platzer classification also had similar degrees of intraobserver and interobserver reliability, at κ = 0.767 and κ = 0.586, respectively [5].…”

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifications in Brief: Pires Classification of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

Gheewala

Young

2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifications in Brief: Pires Classification of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

Gheewala

Young

2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The median age of the study cohort was 79 years (10.3), including 90 female (70%) and 39 male (30%) patients (Table 1). Female patients had an average age of 80 (9.9) years and male patients of 78 (12) years (p = 0.153). The majority of the patients had an ASA score of ≥ 3 and sustained the PPF after primary hip replacement.…”

Section: General Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The treatment of PPF of the hip is currently guided by the most widely utilized Vancouver classification system [9,10]. A broad consensus exists regarding the treatment of Vancouver A and C fractures, but there is an ongoing discussion about the validity of the Vancouver B subtypes and, therefore, new classification systems were developed [10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision rate is higher in patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following revision arthroplasty in comparison with ORIF following our algorithm: a two-center 1 analysis of 129 patients

Pflüger

Bolierakis

Wurm

et al. 2021

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Effective therapy of periprosthetic femur fractures of the hip (PPF) are challenging due to patients’ frailty and complexity of fracture patterns. The aim of this cohort study was to analyze the radiological and functional outcome following PPF. Methods A retrospective, multicenter study in the period 2009–2019 of patients with PPF at two level I trauma centers in Germany was performed. PPF were classified according to the Vancouver classification system. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, type of surgery, complications, and reoperation rate were obtained from patient records. The functional outcome was assessed by the modified Harris-Hip Score (mHHS), general health using the EQ-5D, and radiological outcome by Beals & Tower (B&T) criteria. Results A total of 129 patients with a mean age of 79 years (range 43–102) were included. 70% of all patients were female and 68% of the patients had an ASA score ≥ 3. 20 patients suffered from a Vancouver A, 90 from a Vancouver B and 19 from a Vancouver C fracture. 14% of the patients died within the first 2 years after surgery. The reoperation rate after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) (n = 60) was 8% and after revision arthroplasty (RA) (n = 47) 30% (OR 3.4, 95% CI [1.21–10.2]). Mean mHHS (n = 32) was 53 ± 19.4 and EQ-VAS was 50 ± 24.6. According to B&T criteria, 82% of patients treated with ORIF (n = 17) and 62% after RA (n = 13) showed an excellent outcome. Conclusion Patients with a PPF of the hip are elderly and at increased operative risk. In cases with a stable prosthesis, ORIF provides good radiological outcome with low reoperation rates. In case of RA, the risk for revision surgery is higher.

show abstract

“…Other options include combined retrograde intramedullary nailing and either a lateral locking plate or an interposition sleeve to engage stemmed implants where fracture fixation cannot be achieved. 81 - 83 Fractures around either loose THR (type B) or loose TKR (type C) implants require IF and stemmed revision. Type D fractures where both THR and TKR implants are loose or where there is severely compromised interprosthetic bone stock require revision surgery and femoral reconstruction with cortical strut allografts, interposition sleeves or total femur replacement (TFR).…”

Section: Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

Lamb

Palan

et al. 2020

EFORT Open Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden. A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies. Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately. Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems. Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003

show abstract

Reliability of the commonly used classification systems for interprosthetic fractures

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

Classifications in Brief: Pires Classification of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

Classifications in Brief: Pires Classification of Interprosthetic Femur Fractures

Revision rate is higher in patients with periprosthetic femur fractures following revision arthroplasty in comparison with ORIF following our algorithm: a two-center 1 analysis of 129 patients

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About